Um die anderen Arten von Veröffentlichungen zu diesem Thema anzuzeigen, folgen Sie diesem Link: Philosophy and religion.
Zeitschriftenartikel zum Thema „Philosophy and religion“
Geben Sie eine Quelle nach APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard und anderen Zitierweisen an
Machen Sie sich mit Top-50 Zeitschriftenartikel für die Forschung zum Thema "Philosophy and religion" bekannt.
Neben jedem Werk im Literaturverzeichnis ist die Option "Zur Bibliographie hinzufügen" verfügbar. Nutzen Sie sie, wird Ihre bibliographische Angabe des gewählten Werkes nach der nötigen Zitierweise (APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver usw.) automatisch gestaltet.
Sie können auch den vollen Text der wissenschaftlichen Publikation im PDF-Format herunterladen und eine Online-Annotation der Arbeit lesen, wenn die relevanten Parameter in den Metadaten verfügbar sind.
Sehen Sie die Zeitschriftenartikel für verschiedene Spezialgebieten durch und erstellen Sie Ihre Bibliographie auf korrekte Weise.
1
Strenski, Ivan. „Philosophy of (Lived) Religion“. Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 41, Nr. 1 (März 2012): 5–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0008429811430052.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
The cohabitation of philosophy with the study of religion has such a long history that we have not been motivated to consider the terms of that relationship. This paper proposes that this relationship needs to be examined radically. That is to say it proposes to query the nature, or possible natures, of the relationship of philosophy to the study of religion by posing such questions as the following: What kind of philosophy belongs in the study of religion? Constructive? Critical? Does philosophy have an independent role in the study of religion or does it, rather, best play the role of ‘handmaiden’? To the extent that philosophy plays an integral part in the study of religion, how should philosophy reflect the global and cross-cultural nature of the study of religion? To what extent does a philosophy that is integral to the study of religion need to change in order to reflect the philosophical agendas integral to other religions than Christianity? La cohabitation de la philosophie avec l’étude de la religion a une si longue histoire que nous ne nous sommes pas penchés sur les termes de cette relation. Cet article montre le besoin d’un examen radical de cette relation. C’est-à-dire qu’il propose d’interroger la nature, ou les natures possibles, de la relation que la philosophie entretient avec l’étude de la religion à partir de plusieurs questions: Quels types de philosophie font partie de l’étude de la religion? Constructive? Critique? La philosophie a-t-elle un rôle indépendant dans l’étude de la religion ou est-elle plutôt dans le rôle de « servir » ? Dans la mesure où la philosophie est une partie intégrante de l’étude de la religion, comment la philosophie devrait-elle refléter la nature mondiale et culturellement croisée de l’étude de la religion ? Dans quelle mesure, une philosophie faisant partie intégrante de l’étude de la religion doit-elle être transformée de façon à rendre compte des programmes des religions autres que la Chrétienté?
2
Rennie, Bryan. „The History (and Philosophy) of Religions“. Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 41, Nr. 1 (März 2012): 24–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0008429811430055.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
In a paper given at a Roundtable at the American Academy of Religion (AAR) National Annual Conference in Montreal in November of 2009, jointly organized by the North American Association for the Study of Religion and the Critical Theory and Discourses in Religion Group of the AAR, I argued for the ineluctably philosophical nature of what is most commonly called ‘method and theory in the study of religion.’ That paper ( Rennie, 2010 ) also argues that what is conventionally referred to as ‘philosophy of religion’ does not, strictly speaking, warrant that name since it is in fact a form of theology that utilizes philosophical methodologies to consider principally, if not exclusively, Christian concerns. I also argued that a philosophy of religion(s) constituted along the lines of the philosophy of science would be a potential improvement in both ‘philosophy of religion’ and ‘method and theory in the study of religion.’ In this paper I would like to consider—with the help of a closer look at contemporary philosophy of science—precisely what a reconstituted history (and philosophy) of religions might look like, how it might differ from current scholarship, and what it might achieve. Dans une communication donnée lors d’une table ronde à l’American Academy of Religion (AAR) National Annual Conference à Montréal en novembre 2009, organisée conjointement par le North American Association for the Study of Religion et le groupe de Critical Theory and Discourses in Religion de l’AAR, j’avais argué la nature inéluctablement philosophique de ce qui est couramment appelé « Method and Theory in the Study of Religion ». Cet article ( Rennie, 2010 ) soutient également la thèse que ce qu’on appelle couramment « Philosophie de la religion » ne correspond pas stricto sensu à ce qu’une telle dénomination recouvre puisqu’il s’agit en fait d’une forme de théologie recourant à des méthodes philosophiques pour envisager des préoccupations principalement, sinon exclusivement, chrétiennes. Je soutiens aussi qu’une philosophie des religions constituée à partir des lignes de force de la philosophie des sciences pourrait apporter une amélioration potentielle de la philosophie de la religion, de la méthode et de la théorie dans l’étude des religions. Dans cet article, j’aimerais examiner précisément —par le biais des apports de la philosophie des sciences contemporaine— ce à quoi l’histoire (et la philosophie) des religions pourrait ressembler, les termes dans lesquels elle se distinguerait des approches actuelles et ce à quoi nous pourrions ainsi aspirer.
3
Schilbrack, Kevin. „New Directions for Philosophy of Religion: Four Proposals“. Studies in Religion/Sciences Religieuses 41, Nr. 1 (März 2012): 46–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0008429811430058.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
This set of papers explores the topic of “Possible Futures for Philosophy of Religion.” Though the field of philosophy of religion today has grown relatively narrow, these four papers seek to stretch it back out and all four are (as befitting our topic) forward-looking. Although the papers cover several different issues, I am going to shoehorn them into that pre-conceived category—the future of philosophy of religion—and then focus on the parts of the papers central to that category and ignore the other parts that don’t fit that template. This will not do justice to the complexity of the reality I am describing, but this procrustean practice is not unusual in philosophy of religion. Cette palette d’articles explore la thématique des ‘futurs possibles pour la philosophie des religions’. Bien que le champ de la philosophie des religions se soit aujourd’hui relativement rétréci, ces quatre articles tentent de l’élargir à nouveau et tous les quatre sont (au bénéfice de la thématique) tournés vers son devenir. Bien qu’ils couvrent des aspects différents de cette thématique, je vais les faire entrer dans cette catégorie préconçue —le futur de la philosophie des religions— et me focaliserai sur les parties des textes qui sont essentielles à cette catégorie pour en ignorer celles qui n’entrent pas dans ce cadre précis. Une telle approche ne saurait rendre compte de la complexité de la réalité que je décris, mais cette pratique de Procuste n’est point inhabituelle en philosophie des religions.
4
Bello, Joathas Soares. „Philosophy of religion and religation“. Synesis 5, Nr. 2 (2013): 85–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.14195/1984-6754_5-2_6.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
5
Neville, Robert Cummings. „Religions, philosophies, and philosophy of religion“. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 38, Nr. 1-3 (Dezember 1995): 165–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf01322955.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
6
Allen, Diogenes. „IS Philosophy of Religion Enough?“ Theology Today 44, Nr. 3 (Oktober 1987): 311–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/004057368704400303.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
“The adaptation and extension of the philosophy of religion required for teaching in theological seminaries would not only give it greater value to theological students. It could also lead to significant improvement of contemporary philosophy of religion itself, by showing the value of philosophical reflection on actual religions.”
7
Kazin, Aleksandar. „Russian religion and Russian philosophy“. Zbornik Matice srpske za drustvene nauke, Nr. 152 (2015): 409–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.2298/zmsdn1552409k.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
In the article the author tells us about the religious essence of Russian philosophy as its basic characteristic since in was founded in the middle of the 19th century until now. Russian philosophy never existed or couldn?t have existed in the European state of mind because it?s essentially a philosophic interpretation of religious faith. According to the author?s opinion, European philosophy, as a whole, has left the borders of the Christian spiritual plain by making the anthropocentric principle of thinking the absolute, which took it into positivism and nihilism. Russian philosophy hasn?t left the Christian spiritual field and has kept a theocentric (classical) type of thinking till the present day. The stand-point of the believing mind which rejects transcendental, as well as any other self foundation of the European philosophy. From the beginning until the present day, Russian philosophy has been opposed to the Descartes-Kant?s way of thinking. Western modern philosophy killed God intellectualy, and postmodern killed the Man as well, moving its philosophy into an empty space of ?transindividual constructions?. Ivan Kirejevski founded an ontological-gbnoseological model of Russian secular Christian philosophy in the middle of the 19th century, and from that, later, other branches of Russian philosophy developed: ontological-cultural (Danilevski, Leontjev), ontological-anthropological (Solovjov, Berdjajev, Ern). Briefly, Russian philosophy is what Russian national culture, based on Orthodox Christian views, can say about the World and the Man using the conceptual language.
8
Wood, William. „Leo Strauss on Religion as the Fundamental Alternative to Philosophy“. Roczniki Filozoficzne 71, Nr. 2 (28.06.2023): 289–311. http://dx.doi.org/10.18290/rf237102.15.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Leo Strauss is well known for his thesis that there is an irreconcilable conflict between philosophy and “revelation,” i.e. monotheistic revealed religion, which cannot be harmonized. The philosopher qua philosopher cannot be a believer, while the believer qua believer cannot be a philosopher. However, it is less widely recognized that Strauss’ thought about religion as the fundamental alternative to philosophy follows two divergent trajectories. The first emphasizes the unique importance of revealed religion, while the other emphasizes the conflict between philosophy and what he calls “religion in general.” Sometimes, Strauss suggests that revelation poses a unique “challenge” to philosophy, such that the philosopher must refute the mere possibility of revelation in order to justify the legitimacy of philosophy itself. Sometimes, however, he suggests rather that revelation is a religion like any other, not essentially different from e.g. ancient polytheism, which would seem therefore to pose no unique “challenge.” I argue that Strauss ultimately fails to reconcile these two strands of this thought and that this failure is related both to tensions internal to his positive conception of philosophy itself as a middle path between dogmatism and skepticism and to the fact that he begs the question by assuming, rather than proving, that it follows necessarily from “the very idea of revelation” that it cannot be harmonized with philosophy.
9
Obitts, Stanley. „Philosophy of Religion“. Faith and Philosophy 4, Nr. 2 (1987): 224–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/faithphil19874221.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
10
Bleickert, Günter. „Philosophy of Religion“. Philosophy and History 19, Nr. 1 (1986): 32–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/philhist198619119.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
11
Hösle, Vittorio. „Religion, Theology, Philosophy“. Philotheos 3 (2003): 3–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/philotheos200331.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
12
Scheler, Max, und Petro Gusak. „Religion and philosophy“. Ukrainian Religious Studies, Nr. 80 (13.12.2016): 100–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.32420/2016.80.728.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
The views of the philosophers and theologians diverge and disagree on the issues whether or not the objects of religious faith: the existence and essence of God, the immortality of the soul and similar content, as well as the extent to which the belief and assertion of the existence of those objects can be objects of philosophical knowledge. It can be stated that, in contrast to the teachings that reigned in minds from the XIII and the end of the XVIII century, the 19th century gave birth to an almost immense number of "positions" to the above-mentioned issues, which did not go beyond the scope of their adoption in narrower circles of scientific schools. These "positions" to this day are mutually fighting, without the prospect of winning any of them.
13
Mouw, Richard J. „Philosophy of Religion“. Philosophical Books 45, Nr. 3 (Juli 2004): 271–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0149.2004.00353.x.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
14
Henriksen, Jan-Olav. „Philosophy of religion“. Studia Theologica - Nordic Journal of Theology 62, Nr. 1 (Juni 2008): 1–3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00393380802131848.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
15
Mesle, Bob. „Philosophy of Religion“. Process Studies 15, Nr. 2 (1986): 141–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/process198615218.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
16
Bishop, Donald H. „Philosophy of Religion“. Teaching Philosophy 12, Nr. 3 (1989): 334–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/teachphil198912397.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
17
Martin, Glen. „Religion and Philosophy“. Teaching Philosophy 18, Nr. 1 (1995): 75–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/teachphil19951818.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
18
Dilley, Frank B. „Philosophy of Religion“. Teaching Philosophy 20, Nr. 1 (1997): 71–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/teachphil19972016.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
19
Beyer, Jason A. „Philosophy of Religion“. Teaching Philosophy 24, Nr. 3 (2001): 292–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/teachphil200124338.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
20
Beyer, Jason A. „Philosophy of Religion“. Teaching Philosophy 25, Nr. 2 (2002): 174–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/teachphil200225227.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
21
Beyer, Jason. „Philosophy of Religion“. Teaching Philosophy 26, Nr. 2 (2003): 184–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/teachphil200326223.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
22
Beyer, Jason A. „Philosophy of Religion“. Teaching Philosophy 26, Nr. 4 (2003): 384–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/teachphil200326448.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
23
Ziemiński, Ireneusz. „Philosophy of Religion as Way to Skepticism“. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 10, Nr. 1 (11.03.2018): 53–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.24204/ejpr.v10i1.1873.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
The article aims to answer the question whether philosophy of religion can fulfil its research goals, that is discover the essence of religion, find out if any one of them (and, if need be, which one) is true and if faith and religious behavior are rational. In the face of a multitude of religions it is difficult to point to any common elements which makes it harder (if not impossible) to discover the essence of religion. Trying to prove the consistency of the concept of God as an object of religion and either His/Her existence or non-existence faces similar problems; this makes it impossible to conclusively decide whether religion is true or not. Therefore, it is also difficult to settle whether religious faith (or lack thereof) is rational or irrational. However, this failure does not deny the cognitive value of philosophy of religion, which can analyze various religious doctrines as it relates to their consistency, truthfulness, or the rationality of following them.
24
Taliaferro, Charles. „Philosophy of Religion: A Guide and Anthology; Philosophy of Religion“. Philosophia Christi 3, Nr. 1 (2001): 279–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/pc20013124.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
25
Schilbrack, Kevin. „Towards a Philosophy of Religious Studies: A Response to Critics“. Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 28, Nr. 1 (02.12.2016): 98–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15700682-12341359.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
This paper responds to critiques of my Philosophy and the Study of Religions: A Manifesto (Blackwell, 2014) from Jeppe Jensen, Mark Gardiner, Bryan Rennie, and Kenneth MacKendrick. It aims to defend my book’s proposals in such a way as to nudge the discipline of philosophy of religion into a reflexive mode that might be called “philosophy of religion studies.”
26
Korostichenko, Ekaterina. „Materialist Philosophy of Michel Onfray“. Voprosy Filosofii, Nr. 7 (Juli 2024): 184–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.21146/0042-8744-2024-7-184-192.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
The article examines the atheological concept of “the most popular French philosopher” Michel Onfray, as well as his criticism of religion. Onfray borrows the term “atheology” from G. Bataille, which he understands as a current of thought that deconstructs theological truths. The philosopher identifies three original tasks of atheology: the deconstruction of monotheism, the demythologization of Judeo-Christianity and Islam, and the deconstruction of theocracy. He implements all these three tasks in one way or another. The article demonstrates that Onfray’s concept of atheology does not represent something radically new or significantly different from the existing tradition of religion critique. Onfray limits himself to the three monotheisms that have the greatest political influence and resolutely condemns almost all aspects of the three religions. We note that in doing so, Onfray simplifies the image of religion, presenting it exclusively in a negative light. Such negativism brings Onfray closer not only to contemporary new atheists, especially C. Hitchens, who believes that “religion poisons everything”, but also to such representatives of French materialism as Holbach and La Mettrie. Onfray’s approach seems abstract because it does not provide a thorough socio-historical explanation of monotheistic religions. It is shown that his criticism of religion is based on a significant philosophical tradition that goes from Democritus, Lucretius, Epicurus, to Freud, Marx, and Nietzsche, and includes French materialists such as Holbach, La Mettrie, Helvetius. His hedonism is more likely to be drawn from the Cyrenaics than from Epicurus. The originality of Onfray’s approach lies in the fact that he incorporates materialism and hedonism into his concept of “philosophy of nature”. Onfray’s positive agenda, although resonant with a number of contemporary issues, is formulated in extremely general terms and is poorly worked out.
27
Acharya, Sankarshan. „A unifying philosophy of governance“. Journal of Governance and Regulation 1, Nr. 3 (2012): 126–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.22495/jgr_v1_i3_c1_p6.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Bertrand Russell won Nobel Prize for arguing that science has triumphed over religion. Since religions are based on god, Russell’s argument implies that science has triumphed over both religion and god. But neither Russell nor anyone else has ever defined religion and god, rationally. The assertion about triumph of science (which is founded on rationality) over concepts such as religion and god (which are not defined rationally or scientifically in the extant literature) cannot be rational. This paper offers a novel rational philosophical foundation for the concepts of god, religion and science in which the claim that science triumphs over religion is redundant. This paper also presents substantial new insights about epistemic truths to help resolve current problems facing humanity like financial moral hazard and terrorism which have unnerved nations worldwide. The humanity now begs to answer a fundamental question of how we can govern ourselves. This paper offers a coherent set of credible answers. In particular, it offers a coherent unified philosophy about how humans have universally formed beliefs to govern themselves and how this philosophy could help resolve current problems. The universal rendering of beliefs articulated here subsumes the extant characterization of probability beliefs in mathematics, science, engineering, economics, religion and philosophy. The universal beliefs so articulated in this paper obviate the currently prevalent philosophical conflicts between religion and science or between theism and atheism and paves the way for optimal governance for prosperity amid stability. This philosophy also offers a rational characterization of the spiritual notion of Nirvana or salvation of the soul and the notion of epistemic truth. The unifying philosophy can help humanity achieve unity, stability and prosperity, sans financial moral hazard, antagonism, wars, nuclear proliferation, global warming and atmospheric pollution.
28
Nathi, Yugendar. „PHILOSOPHY OF GANDHI: VIEWS ON RELIGION AND GOD“. SCHOLARLY RESEARCH JOURNAL FOR HUMANITY SCIENCE AND ENGLISH LANGUAGE 9, Nr. 47 (01.10.2021): 11495–507. http://dx.doi.org/10.21922/srjhsel.v9i47.7689.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Religion, according to Gandhi, is more or less, a way of life, and as such is the personal concern of the individual who has to choose his way of life. Gandhi believes that different religions are the different ways of apprehending the Truth. The basic conviction of Gandhi is that there is one reality – that of God, which is nothing else but Truth. His religious ideas are also derived from that conviction. If Truth is God, sincere pursuit of Truth is religion. Religion is ordinarily defined as devotion to some higher power or principle, Gandhi is not against such a description of religion, he only qualifies it further by saying that higher principle being truth, devotion to Truth (or God) is religion. Gandhi believes that true religion has to be practical. Therefore, he says that religion should pervade every aspect of our life. Religion is the belief that there is an ordered moral government of the universe, and this belief must have practical bearings for all aspects of life. According to Gandhi there is no difference between religious ideal and metaphysical or moral ideal, the religious way is also the way of truth – Sathyagraha. This paper discuss about Gandhi’s ideas of God, religion, the way of religion and the religious harmony in the world.
29
Sholihin, Anwar. „Metode Filsafat Keagamaan Islam“. Ta'dibia: Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan Agama Islam 8, Nr. 1 (15.05.2019): 67. http://dx.doi.org/10.32616/tdb.v8.1.151.67-74.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
This paper is a philosophical research that discusses the meaning of religion and its relevance in supporting religious plurality in Indonesia. The meaning of the religion was analyzed based on the thoughts of several philosophers. philosophy related to religious beliefs and traditions will only be appropriate and in line if a follower of religion always demands himself to try to understand and live rationally all teachings, doctrines, faith and religious beliefs. Thus, philosophy is no longer seen as an enemy of religion. The understanding of the adherents of the religion is based on the truth of the religion he believes in. The truth that is used as a benchmark for the scavengers is based on understanding certain religions. Meanwhile, the religious substance is universal. The truth contained in each religion is actually the same / one. Understanding the relativity of religion as a certain form and at the same time having substantive elements is expected to be able to build an open understanding of religion and constructive inter-religious interaction. For religious philosophy is born and there are several approaches and methods in learning it. Philosophy of religion is the philosophy of religion itself, which is thinking about the basics of religion according to free logic. With this approach and method it can provide a clear concept in philosophizing
30
Hidayatullah, Syarif, Mahmud Arif und Arqom Kuswanjono. „Seyyed Hossein Nasr’s Perennialism Perspective for the Development of Religious Studies in Indonesia“. Jurnal Filsafat 33, Nr. 2 (30.08.2023): 357. http://dx.doi.org/10.22146/jf.82439.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
One of phenomena that can be analyzed in modern life of human being nowadays is the dysfunction of religion in the social sphere and the development of science and technology. In the context of getting a solution on such modernity crisis, Seyyed Hossein Nasr offers perennial philosophy, by representing Islamic traditional wisdom in modern life of human beings who suffer from a loss of spiritual dimension. This research aims, first, to know the perspective of Seyyed Hossein Nasr's perennial philosophy, and, second, to explore the relevance of perennial philosophy in Seyyed Hossein Nasr's thought about the study of religion. The research results are: firstly, perennial philosophy is a monumental work of Seyyed Hossein Nasr that unites among religion of Islam, philosophy, and science. For Nasr, perennial philosophy is a universal knowledge; that applies eternal and lasting values or norms which emerged from religion throughout the history of human being. Secondly, Nasr offers perennial philosophy as a perspective for study on religions, especially Islam. According to Nasr, there are three responses, namely: firstly, to criticize modern human being whose non-spirituality caused by secularist paradigm of the West modern science and technology; secondly, excavation and reinforcement of the traditional wisdom; and, thirdly, unity or meeting point of all religions in eternal universal principles.
31
Lim, Daniel F. „Experimental Philosophy and Philosophy of Religion“. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 9, Nr. 3 (21.09.2017): 139–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.24204/ejpr.v9i3.1985.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Experimental Philosophy is a new and controversial movement that challenges some of the central findings within analytic philosophy by marshalling empirical evidence. The purpose of this short paper is twofold: (i) to introduce some of the work done in experimental philosophy concerning issues in philosophy of language, philosophy of mind, and metaphysics and (ii) to connect this work with several debates within the philosophy of religion. The provisional conclusion is that philosophers of religion must critically engage experimental philosophy.
32
Zubkovskaya, Anastasia A. „On the notion «the fictional religion»“. Vestnik of Samara State Technical University. Series Philosophy 5, Nr. 4 (12.12.2023): 5–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.17673/vsgtu-phil.2023.4.1.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
The paper presents a theoretical analysis of the notion of the fictional religion, which is used in religious studies to describe and study various aspects of post-secular culture. Within the framework of the modern post-non-classical type of rationality, the constructivist approach to understanding religion has become quite popular. In this regard, it is proposed to consider the term fictional religion (and related concepts, such as parody religion, invented religion, imaginary religion, etc.). as reflections of the problem of intentional creation of religious movements, which is a specific feature of modern culture. The main theoretical issues of this paper are the following. Is it possible to invent a religion? How to distinguish the phenomena of fictional religions and traditional religions? What approaches can a researcher use to study fictional religions? Which religions can be considered fictional, and which are invented? To explain the genesis and the nature of fictional religions, a neo-Kantian approach is proposed, based on the philosophy of symbolism of Ernst Kassirer and his disciple Susan Langer. In the perspective of symbolic philosophy, fictional religions are considered as cultural forms. In conclusion, a typology of fictional religions is proposed, approaches to defining its nature as hyperreality in postmodern terminology or cultural form from the point of view of the neo-Kantian approach, as well as a look at the structure of fictional religions.
33
Gellman, Jerome. „I Called to God from a Narrow Place... A Wide Future for Philosophy of Religion“. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 3, Nr. 1 (21.03.2011): 43–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.24204/ejpr.v3i1.380.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
I urge philosophers of religion to investigate far more vigorously than they have until now the acceptability of varied components of the world religions and their epistemological underpinnings. By evaluating “acceptability” I mean evaluation of: truth, morality, spiritual efficacy and human flourishing, in fact any value religious devotees might think significant to their religious lives. Secondly, I urge that philosophers of religion give more attention to what scholars have called the “esoteric” level of world religions, including components of strong ineffability, weak ineffability, and an alleged perennial philosophy. All this should involve a cooperative effort between analytic, comparative, and feminist philosophy of religion.
34
Antonov, Konstantin, und Tatiana Rezvykh. „S.L. Frank’s Lectures “Philosophy of Religion” and “Religionsphilosophie”: Their Audience, Ideas and Context“. Otechestvennaya Filosofiya 1, Nr. 2 (Juli 2023): 93–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.21146/3034-1825-2023-2-93-120.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
This publication introduces into the academic community S.L. Frank’s preparatory lecture notes and remarks on the philosophy of religion, created by philosopher during the preparation of his main work in this field – the treatise “The Unknowable. An Ontological Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion” (1939). The preface to the publication attempts to describe the supposed audience of the lectures, to establish, at least approximately, the time and place of their reading, to characterize their philosophical context, terminology and basic ideas, their place in the development of the author’s thought. Publishers date both texts from the late 1920s to early 1930s and establish their relationship to previously published notes, which are referred to in the publication as “First Philosophy”. The authors pay much attention to Frank’s terminology, drawing attention to its connection with the ideas of R. Otto (“the sacred”, misterium tremendum, etc.), R. Marett (the idea of taboo and mana as the minimum of religion) and revealing the possible origins of the concept of “unknowable” used by the philosopher, which would later become the “visiting card” of his philosophy of religion. In conceptual sense, Frank’s understanding of philosophy of religion as philosophy about religion, while striving to move away from a purely objectivist approach, and justifying philosophical theology as an important aspect of philosophy of religion, is of paramount importance. Knowledge through revelation turns out to be an important constitutive element of the religious attitude. Frank’s analysis of religious experience as an experience of mystery, revealing the religious component of existential experience and concluding the lecture with the problem of ontological proof of the existence of God is considered.
35
Woodrum, Eric, und Catherine L. Albanese. „America, Religions and Religion“. Review of Religious Research 34, Nr. 4 (Juni 1993): 372. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3511974.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
36
Insole, Christopher. „A Wittgensteinian Philosophy of Religion – or A Philosophy of Wittgensteinian Religion?“ Heythrop Journal 39, Nr. 2 (April 1998): 148–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2265.00070.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
37
Langthaler, R. „Kants „moralisch-bestimmter Monotheismus“ – eine an der „wahren Aufklärung“ orientierte Kritik an Lessings Ringparabel?“ Kantian journal 39, Nr. 2 (2020): 46–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.5922/0207-6918-2020-2-3.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Numerous passages in the context of Kant’s philosophy of religion show without doubt his acquaintance with Lessing. But apart from the obvious affinity and agreement between Kant and Lessing with regard to many substantial questions, serious differences cannot be overlooked; the frequently diagnosed closeness and widely suspected “harmony” between the two is probably also the primary reason why important factual differences and controversial aspects have so far usually been neglected or ignored in research, although they still continue to raise problems and controversies in the context of the Enlightenment and the philosophy of religion. Although Lessing and Kant are both committed to the ideas of the Enlightenment and also appear as “related in essence”, above all with regard to religio-philosophical questions, Kant’s “moral determined monotheism” also contains an obvious criticism of Lessing’s religio-philosophical doctrines. This is also obvious in Kant’s — direct and indirect — confrontation with the “Ring Parable” in Lessing’s drama Nathan the Wise. The criticism that becomes apparent there concerns above all the question of “principles” left unclarified by Lessing, the “equal rank” of the monotheistic religions which he claimed, and the asserted “competition of religions.” I investigate some of the main points of this criticism.
38
Kolodnyi, Anatolii M. „The Department of Religious Studies is the leading institution of Ukraine for research on religious phenomena“. Ukrainian Religious Studies, Nr. 8 (22.12.1998): 65–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.32420/1998.8.184.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
The Department of Religious Studies is formed on an autonomous basis in the structure of the Institute of Philosophy by the decision of the Presidium of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine in June 1991 with the prospect of its transformation into an independent academic institution. The first director of the Department was Dr. Philos. Mr., O.S. Onischenko, Corresponding Member of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. The Department includes departments of the philosophy of religion (headed by A. Kolodnyi, Ph.D.), sociology of religion (the head of the Philosophical Philosophy Department P.Kosuh), the history of religion in Ukraine (the head of the Philosophy Philosophy Yarotsky) During the first three years, departments conducted research on the following topics: "Methodological Principles and Categorical Apparatus of Religious Studies"; "Contemporary Religious Situation in Ukraine: State, Trends, Forecasts"; "History of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine". Since 1994, they have been working on problems: "The phenomenon of religion: nature, essence, functionality"; "Religious activity in the context of social processes in Ukraine"; "Features and milestones of the history of Ukrainian Christianity". At the time, the research group on the history of theological thought in Ukraine (headed by K.Filosov V.Klimov) studied the creative work of Metropolitan Petro Mohyla, a group on the study of neo-religions (head of the department - Philosophy L. L. Filippovich) - investigated new religious currents and cults of post-socialist Ukraine, and a group on the history of Protestantism (headed by F. Philosopher P. Kosuh, coordinator - Ph.D. S.Golovashchenko) conducted a large-scale study of archival sources on the history of the Gospel-Baptist movement in Ukraine. In 1995, the Department employed 30 scientific staff (including 5 doctors and 14 candidates of science).
39
Rennie, Bryan. „After This Strange Starting: Method, Theory and the Philosophy of Religion(s)“. Method & Theory in the Study of Religion 22, Nr. 2-3 (2010): 116–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/157006810x512329.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
AbstractThis paper argues for the ineluctably philosophical nature of “method and theory” in the academic study of religion. More to the point, it encourages a significant re-consideration of what passes for the “Philosophy of Religion,” a subfield whose concentration on mediaeval and contemporary Christian philosophical theology has impeded the development of an effective philosophical treatment of global human religious behavior. The paper seeks a History of Religions that is more informed by and about philosophy as a tradition and as a method and which therefore includes a disciplinary Philosophy of Religion(s) that is more relevant, practical, far-ranging, and productive.
40
Beuchot Puente, Maurício. „The philosophy of religion today“. Synesis 5, Nr. 2 (2013): 136–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.14195/1984-6754_5-2_9.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
41
Barrett, Nathaniel F. „Defining Religion: Essays in Philosophy of Religion“. American Journal of Theology & Philosophy 41, Nr. 2-3 (01.05.2020): 188–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.5406/amerjtheophil.41.2-3.0188.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
42
Bernasconi, Robert. „Religious Philosophy: Hegel's Occasional Perplexity in the Face of the Distinction Between Philosophy and Religion“. Hegel Bulletin 23, Nr. 1-2 (Januar 2002): 1–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0263523200007862.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Hegel is widely recognized as the preeminent philosopher of the history of philosophy. His Lectures on the History of Philosophy are designed in large measure to answer questions about philosophy's apparent futility by reformulating the presentation of the seemingly pointless succession of forms of philosophy so as to show its organic development (Hegel, 1994, 24). To reveal the proper shape of the history of philosophy, what is extraneous to it had to be omitted. Much that had previously been regarded as philosophy was now to be treated under the heading of religion. The distinction between philosophy and religion, the decision as to what was philosophy and what was religion, took on an importance it had previously lacked. Although subsequent historians of philosophy did not always share Hegel's concern to show the organic development of the history of philosophy, his decisions about what was to be included and what excluded from philosophy proved particularly important in respect of the question of the place subsequently given to Indian philosophy. For this reason Hegel deservedly holds a central place in current discussions about the philosophical canon.
43
MacKendrick, Kenneth G. „Postmetaphysical Thinking and the Philosophy of Religion“. Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 28, Nr. 1 (02.12.2016): 84–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15700682-12341353.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
This essay focuses on Chapter Six, “Are Religions Out of Touch with Reality?” of Kevin Schilbrack’sPhilosophy and the Study of Religion: A Manifesto. Two objections are discussed: the rehabilitation of metaphysics and the concept “unmediated experience.” Throughout, Jürgen Habermas’s postmetaphysical communicative theoretic is drawn upon to field reasonable alternatives to Schilbrack’s proposals.
44
Kiryukhin, Denys. „The basic principles of the historiosophy of Hegel's religion“. Ukrainian Religious Studies, Nr. 12 (16.11.1999): 29–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.32420/1999.12.1036.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
As you know, the foundations of modern historiography of religion were laid by Hegel. "Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion," which he read at the University of Berlin, represent not only a unique system of philosophy of religion, but, equally important, is also an example of a profound historiosophical study of the religious phenomenon. However, unfortunately, this part of the Hegelian heritage remains largely unexplored in the national philosophic and religious studies literature
45
Rodríguez García, Sonia E. „Hacia una filosofía fenomenológica de la religión“. Investigaciones Fenomenológicas, Nr. 17 (08.02.2021): 239. http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/rif.17.2020.29713.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
La fenomenología de la religión es una de las ciencias de las religiones surgida en el siglo XIX. Tras una época dorada, las dificultades epistemológicas y los debates suscitados en torno al estatuto del saber la abocaron a una profunda crisis interna. En la actualidad, existen dos formas de entender la fenomenología de la religión: la primera, como historia comparada de las religiones, centrada en la descripción y clasificación de los fenómenos religiosos; la segunda, como fenomenología hermenéutica, centrada en la comprensión del fenómeno religioso. Ambas corrientes constituyen dos visiones divergentes de la fenomenología de la religión. Sin embargo, podrían concebirse como dos fases fenomenológicas convergentes que apuntan a la consolidación de una antropología filosófica de la religión. En este artículo, analizamos el objetivo, los principales representantes, las dificultades epistemológicas y los logros de cada una de estas for-mas de comprender la fenomenología de la religión y su posible conjugación en la configuración de una filosofía fenomenológica de la religión.The phenomenology of religion is one of the sciences of religions emerged in the 19th century. After a golden age, the epistemological difficulties, and the debates about the status of knowledge led to a deep internal crisis. At present, there are two ways of understanding the phenomenology of religion: the first, as a com-parative history of religions, focused on description and classification of religious phenomena; the second, as a hermeneutical phenomenology, focused on the understanding of religious phenomena. Both currents constitute two divergent views of phenomenology of religion. However, they can be conceived as two convergent phenomenological phases that point to the consoli-dation of a philosophical anthropology of religion. In this paper, we analyze the goal, main representatives, epistemological difficulties and achievements of each of these ways of understanding the phenomenology of religion and its possible conjugation in the configuration of a phenomenological philosophy of religion.
46
KOUKI, Saber. „EVIDENCE FOR MONOTHEISM BETWEEN RELIGION AND PHILOSOPHY“. RIMAK International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 03, Nr. 06 (01.07.2021): 48–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.47832/2717-8293.6-3.6.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
The research is about the Islamic faith and it is interested in proving the monotheism issue from an Islamic and rational point of view. This will be fulfilled through a survey of evidences from Sunnah and a reading into philosophic approaches of the most well-known Arab-Islamic philosophers andthinlres such as ELFARABI, Ibn-SINA, el kendy, Ibn Roched and Cheik Mohamed Abdou ….This research aims mainly at: - Firmly establishing Religious thinking attempting to reconcile religion and philosophy. - Drawing a path where Ideology and philosophy could huddle together in harmony.
47
Doi, Hiroto. „Thoroughness of philosophy and return to religion in Tanabe Hajime“. F1000Research 13 (12.01.2024): 59. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.130602.1.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
Japanese philosopher Tanabe Hajime (1885–1962) not only discussed religion in ways that were rooted in the fundamental claims of his writings, such as Shinran in Philosophy as Metanoetics (1946), but he also made proposals on religion, as in Demonstration of Christianity (1948), where he advocated for the need for a “second religious reformation.” For Tanabe, philosophy and religion (along with science) are fused in a specific way, and it is possible to find a vision of religion to be aimed for that is worth considering as a theory of religion among Japanese philosophers. To examine the theory of religion in Tanabe, this study focuses on the work, Demonstration of Christianity, and other works from the perspective of religious studies. In Demonstration of Christianity, the concept of absolute religion toward the second religious reformation is envisioned based on Tanabe’s dialectics of the absolute mediation, and a discussion on his world religion can be found, although it is limited to Christianity and some Buddhist sects. Reflecting his absolute dialectic, Tanabe says that this world religion was established through the absolute mediation of Christianity with “Nembutsu-Zen” (the unification of Pure Land Buddhism and Zen Buddhism). One cannot deny the impression of Christocentrism in these discussions, but they are in fact the result of Tanabe’s thoroughness in philosophy. What can be drawn from these discussions is that Tanabe's theory of religion is strongly connected to Platonism, which he considered the root of his dialectics. For example, by the third article in Existence, Love, and Practice (1947), “Self-Transcendence in Platonism and Faith in Gospel.” Tanabe’s argument reveals the characteristics of conceiving a new religion that combines Eastern and Western ideas, philosophy, and religion through a creative interpretation of Platonism, the source of Western thought where philosophy and religion are inseparably linked.
48
Pernebekova, Dinara, Askar Leskhan und Atash Berik. „THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY IN THEIR RELATION TO LOGIC“. Al-Farabi 81, Nr. 1 (15.03.2023): 3–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.48010/2023.1/1999-5911.01.
Der volle Inhalt der QuelleAnnotation:
This article analyzes the relationship of philosophy and theology to the phenomenon of thinking–logic culture. Religions, as you know, can be divided on different grounds. Religion is, of course, not only a form of social consciousness, as, for example, he taught the official world communication. Religion is a rather complex sphere of culture. The article is based on some of the paradigms of religions: firstly, it is the recognition or non-recognition of the existence of God (gods). In this case, religions are divided into non-theistic (recognizing the existence of God or gods) and non-theistic (denying the existence of God or gods. The second type includes, for example, Buddhism. The second basis for distinguishing religions is the number of postulated and revered gods. As a rule, either many gods are postulated (this is polytheism) or one god (this is monotheism). Finally, the third foundation is the status of religion in humanity, the degree of its prevalence, and the number of its adherents. In particular, philosophy is, as is well known, a critical reflection on ideological and world-related problems. The authors argue that the formation of logic in the period of the medieval Muslim East is due to the complex process of the formation of philosophy, humanities, and medieval science in general, in the process of a complex dispute with theology.
49
Cooper, Brigitte Dehmelt. „Philosophy, Science and Religion“. Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 7, Nr. 1 (1995): 171–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/jis199571/210.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle
50
Meynell, Hugo. „Contemporary Philosophy of Religion“. International Philosophical Quarterly 39, Nr. 1 (1999): 107–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/ipq199939177.
Der volle Inhalt der Quelle